18.02.2013 Views

hLpb5

hLpb5

hLpb5

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

that the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs who signed the powers of attorney in November 2010 "affirmed<br />

that as lead counsel I have the authority to make and sign contracts, hire and retain legal<br />

consultants, and designate to others all or part of my power to represent the [Lago Agrio]<br />

Plaintiffs." He also stated that he retained several u.s. law firms to assist with the representation<br />

of the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs, including Patton Boggs, Emery Celli, and Motley Rice.<br />

22. Whether or not the individual Lago Agrio Plaintiffs were or are aware of the<br />

fraud that has been perpetrated by the RICO Defendants and their co-conspirators in their names,<br />

the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs cannot benefit from the fraud and corrupt acts perpetrated ostensibly on<br />

their behalf.<br />

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND VENUE<br />

23. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Chevron's claims under<br />

28 U.S.c. §§ 1331 and 1332, and under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Chevron's first claim for relief<br />

arises under 18 U .S.c. § 1961 et seq., as hereinafter more fully appears. There is also complete<br />

diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,<br />

exclusive of interest and costs. Chevron's state law claims arise out of the same case or<br />

controversy as its federal law claims, as all claims in this action arise out of a common nucleus<br />

of operative facts. Thus, this Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Chevron's state law<br />

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.<br />

24. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.c. § 1391 (b)(2), as a substantial<br />

number of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District, and also under 18 U.S.C.<br />

§ 1965.<br />

PERSONAL JURISDICTION<br />

25. Exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant Donziger is reasonable and proper in this<br />

District because Donziger is a citizen of the State of New York and because he conducts<br />

extensive business activities within the State. Donziger is the sole proprietor ofthe Law Offices<br />

of Steven R. Donziger, which is located and does business in New York. Through his activities<br />

in New York, Donziger has served as the ringleader in the enterprise to defraud and extort<br />

13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!